Paterno, Mark V.

Background: Stable osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) lesions are primarily treated nonoperatively. Nonoperative treatment includes several recommendations, including the use of an unloader brace. However, little is known about the clinical effectiveness of unloader bracing and its influence on OCD healing, return to sports, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the impact of unloader bracing on patients with stable medial femoral condyle (MFC) OCD lesions treated nonoperatively. Purpose: To investigate the influence of valgus unloader bracing on the success of treating stable MFC OCD with nonoperative treatment strategies. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: The authors used a prospective cohort of patients receiving nonoperative care for stable MFC knee OCD lesions. The primary variable of interest was the efficacy of bracing. The primary outcomes were transition from nonoperative care to surgical intervention, return-to-play (RTP) clearance, and PROs. Bivariate testing was used to determine if there were differences between groups. Chi-square testing was used to determine if there were differences in rates of transition to surgery by group. The timing of the transition by each group was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test, given the nonparametric nature of the data. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate time at risk, incidence rate, and survival times for each group. Results: A total of 185 knees (bracing group: 123 [66.5%] knees; no-bracing group: 62 [33.5%] knees) were analyzed. Overall, 142 (76.8%) knees were successfully treated nonoperatively. Transition to surgery occurred in 43 (23.2%) knees. There were no differences in transition to surgery by groups, with no differences seen by group. Of the knees that did not transition to surgical care, 65 (71.4%) in the bracing group and 38 (74.5%) in the no-bracing group received RTP clearance ( P = .693). PRO scores were similar between the 2 groups at the time of RTP clearance. Conclusion: The inclusion of an unloader brace in the nonoperative treatment for stable MFC OCD lesions did not decrease the likelihood of patients undergoing surgical intervention or improve their PRO scores at the time of RTP clearance. Registration: NCT02771496 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Purpose Part-two of this consensus aimed to provide recommendations for the prevention of meniscus injuries, non-operative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports, and patient-reported outcome measures. Methods This consensus followed the European Society of Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) formal consensus methodology. For this combined ESSKA- American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) - American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy (AASPT) initiative, 67 experts from 14 countries, including orthopedic surgeons and physiotherapists, were involved. The 26 Steering Group members established guiding questions, screened the existing evidence, and proposed statements, and provided Grades of recommendations. The 41 Rating Group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale (1-9). Final documents were assessed by an international peer review group for geographical adaptability. Results Low to moderate scientific level of evidence was available, so that grades of recommendations were low (three Grade A ratings, four Grade B, three Grade C and 13 Grade D), underlining the relevance of this consensus. One strong and 17 relative agreements with overall median of 8 (8-9) and a mean of 7.92 +/- 0.37 were achieved for 23 statements on 18 questions. Prevention of meniscus injuries is possible with general knee injury reduction programs and through avoidance of certain activities. Non-Operative treatment including physical therapy is the first line approach for degenerative meniscus lesions and may be an option for some acute tears. Return to sports after meniscus tear surgery should be both criterion-based and time-based. Patient reported outcomes in combination with performance-based measures are recommended to evaluate the rehabilitation process. Conclusion This international EU-US consensus established recommendations for prevention strategies, describes rehabilitation of non-operated patients and of patients after partial meniscectomy, meniscus repair and meniscus reconstruction, and establishes return to sport criteria. These updated and structured recommendations may be applied by surgeons and physiotherapists. Level of Evidence I, Formal Consensus.

Purpose: Part II of this consensus aimed to provide recommendations for the prevention of meniscus injuries, nonoperative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports and patient-reported outcome measures. Methods: This consensus followed the European Society of Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) formal consensus methodology. For this combined ESSKA—American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM)—American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy (AASPT) initiative, 67 experts from 14 countries, including orthopedic surgeons and physiotherapists, were involved. The 26 Steering Group members established guiding questions, screened the existing evidence, and proposed statements, and provided Grades of recommendations. The 41 Rating Group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale (1–9). Final documents were assessed by an international peer review group for geographical adaptability. Results: Low to moderate scientific level of evidence was available, so that grades of recommendations were low (3 Grade A ratings, 4 Grade B, 3 Grade C and 13 Grade D), underlining the relevance of this consensus. One strong and 17 relative agreements with overall median of 8 (8–9) and a mean of 7.92 ± 0.37 were achieved for 23 statements on 18 questions. Prevention of meniscus injuries is possible with general knee injury reduction programs and through avoidance of certain activities. Non-operative treatment including physical therapy is the first line approach for degenerative meniscus lesions and may be an option for some acute tears. Return to sports after meniscus tear surgery should be both criterion-based and timebased. Patient reported outcomes in combination with performance-based measures are recommended to evaluate the rehabilitation process. Conclusion: This international EU–US consensus established recommendations for prevention strategies, describes rehabilitation of nonoperated patients and of patients after partial meniscectomy, meniscus repair and meniscus reconstruction, and establishes return to sport criteria. These updated and structured recommendations may be applied by surgeons and physiotherapists. Level of Evidence: Level I, consensus.

AbstractPurposePart two of this consensus aimed to provide recommendations for the prevention of meniscus injuries, non‐operative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports and patient‐reported outcome measures.MethodsThis consensus followed the European Society of Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) formal consensus methodology. For this combined ESSKA—American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM)—American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy (AASPT) initiative, 67 experts from 14 countries, including orthopedic surgeons and physiotherapists, were involved. The 26 Steering Group members established guiding questions, screened the existing evidence, and proposed statements, and provided Grades of recommendations. The 41 Rating Group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale (1–9). Final documents were assessed by an international peer review group for geographical adaptability.ResultsLow to moderate scientific level of evidence was available, so that grades of recommendations were low (three Grade A ratings, four Grade B, three Grade C and 13 Grade D), underlining the relevance of this consensus. One strong and 17 relative agreements with overall median of 8 (8–9) and a mean of 7.92 ± 0.37 were achieved for 23 statements on 18 questions. Prevention of meniscus injuries is possible with general knee injury reduction programmes and through avoidance of certain activities. Non‐operative treatment including physical therapy is the first line approach for degenerative meniscus lesions and may be an option for some acute tears. Return to sports after meniscus tear surgery should be both criterion‐based and time‐based. Patient reported outcomes in combination with performance‐based measures are recommended to evaluate the rehabilitation process.ConclusionThis international EU–US consensus established recommendations for prevention strategies, describes rehabilitation of non‐operated patients and of patients after partial meniscectomy, meniscus repair and meniscus reconstruction, and establishes return to sport criteria. These updated and structured recommendations may be applied by surgeons and physiotherapists.Level of EvidenceLevel I, consensus.

Purpose The aim of part-one of this EU-US consensus was to combine literature research and expertise to provide recommendations for the usage of rehabilitation (including physical therapy) of patients undergoing surgical treatment for degenerative meniscus lesions or acute meniscus tears (including meniscectomy, repair, or reconstruction). Prevention programs, non-operative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) will be presented in a part-II article. Methods This consensus followed ESSKA “formal consensus” methodology. For this combined ESSKA (European Society for Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy), AOSSM (American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine), ASSPT (American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy) initiative, 67 experts (26 in the steering group and 41 in the rating group) from 14 countries (USA and 13 European countries) including orthopedic surgeons, sports medicine doctors and physiotherapists were involved. Steering group members established guiding questions, searched the literature, proposed statements. Rating group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale and provided grades of recommendations reaching final agreement about rehabilitation of the knee after meniscus surgery. Final documents were then assessed by a peer review group to adress the geographical adaptability. Results The overall level of evidence of the literature was low. Of the 19 questions (leading to 29 statements), one received a grade A of recommendation, two a grade B, nine a grade C and 17 a Grade D. Nevertheless, the mean median rating of all questions was 8.2/9 (9 being the highest rating on a scale of 1-9) and the global mean rating was 8.4+/-0.2, indicating a high agreement. Rehabilitation depends on the type of lesion, the treatment performed and is the same after medial or lateral meniscus surgery. Rehabilitation after meniscectomy should follow a criterion-based rehabilitation protocol, based on milestones rather than a time-based protocol. After meniscus repair and reconstruction, rehabilitation should be progressed according to both time and criterion-based milestones. Conclusion Rehabilitation after meniscus surgery is a debated topic that may influence surgical outcomes if not optimally performed. This international formal consensus established clear, updated, and structured recommendations for both surgeons and physiotherapists treating patients after meniscus surgery. Level of Evidence I, Consensus.

Abstract Purpose The aim of part one of this EU‐US consensus was to combine literature research and expertise to provide recommendations for the usage of rehabilitation (including physical therapy) of patients undergoing surgical treatment for degenerative meniscus lesions or acute meniscus tears (including meniscectomy, repair, or reconstruction). Prevention programmes, non‐operative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports and patient‐reported outcome measures will be presented in a part II article. Methods This consensus followed the European Society for Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA)'s ‘formal consensus’ methodology. For this combined ESSKA, American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine and American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy initiative, 67 experts (26 in the steering group and 41 in the rating group) from 14 countries (US and 13 European countries), including orthopaedic surgeons, sports medicine doctors and physiotherapists were involved. Steering group members established guiding questions, searched the literature and proposed statements. Rating group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale and provided grades of recommendations, reaching a final agreement about rehabilitation of the knee after meniscus surgery. Final documents were then assessed by a peer review group to address the geographical adaptability. Results The overall level of evidence in the literature was low. Of the 19 questions (leading to 29 statements), 1 received a Grade A of recommendation, 2 a Grade B, 9 a Grade C and 17 a Grade D. Nevertheless, the mean median rating of all questions was 8.2/9 (9 being the highest rating on a scale of 1–9). The global mean rating was 8.4 ± 0.2, indicating a high agreement. Rehabilitation depends on the type of lesion, the treatment performed and is the same after medial or lateral meniscus surgery. Rehabilitation after meniscectomy should follow a criterion‐based rehabilitation protocol, based on milestones rather than a time‐based protocol. After meniscus repair and reconstruction, rehabilitation should be progressed according to both time and criterion‐based milestones. Conclusion Rehabilitation after meniscus surgery is a debated topic that may influence surgical outcomes if not optimally performed. This international formal consensus established clear, updated and structured recommendations for both surgeons and physiotherapists treating patients after meniscus surgery. Level of Evidence Level I, consensus.

Background: Osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the knee is a focal idiopathic alteration of subchondral bone and/or its precursor with risk for instability and disruption of adjacent cartilage. Treatment options focused on preventing premature osteoarthritis vary depending on multiple patient and lesion characteristics, including lesion mobility. Purpose: To differentiate lesion mobility before arthroscopy using a multivariable model that includes patient demographic characteristics and physical examination findings. Study Design: Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Demographic, preoperative physical examination, and radiographic data were collected from a multicenter national prospective cohort of patients with OCD of the knee. Inclusion criteria included patients <19 years of age and patients with arthroscopically confirmed mobility status based on the Research on Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee arthroscopy classification. Multivariable logistic regression analysis using stepwise model selection was used to determine factors associated with the likelihood of a mobile versus an immobile lesion. A 75% partition of the data was used for model training, and 25% was used as a validation cohort. Quantitative model fit statistics were computed using the holdout data, including sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), along with the corresponding 95% CI. Results: A total of 407 patients in the prospective cohort met inclusion criteria, and 62% were male. The mean ± SD age was 13.7 ± 2.2 years, height 161.8 ± 5.3 cm, and weight 59.2 ± 42.2 kg. Arthroscopic evaluation yielded 235 immobile and 172 mobile lesions. Multivariable analysis determined that the best model to predict lesion mobility included chronologic age ≥14 years ( P < .001), effusion on physical examination ( P < .001), and any loss of range of motion on physical examination ( P = .07), while controlling for male sex ( P = .38) and weight >54.4 kg ( P = .12). In the 25% holdout validation sample (n = 102), a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 82%, and an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.95) were achieved with these predictive factors. Conclusion: Age, effusion, and loss of motion can predict knee OCD lesion mobility at the time of arthroscopy. Education about lesion mobility can help with surgical planning and patient and family counseling.

Background: Osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) occurs most commonly in the knees of young individuals. This condition is known to cause pain and discomfort in the knee and can lead to disability and early knee osteoarthritis. The cause is not well understood, and treatment plans are not well delineated. The Research in Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee (ROCK) group established a multicenter, prospective cohort to better understand this disease. Purpose: To provide a baseline report of the ROCK multicenter prospective cohort and present a descriptive analysis of baseline data for patient characteristics, lesion characteristics, and clinical findings of the first 1000 cases enrolled into the prospective cohort. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients were recruited from centers throughout the United States. Baseline data were obtained for patient characteristics, sports participation, patient-reported measures of functional capabilities and limitations, physical examination, diagnostic imaging results, and initial treatment plan. Descriptive statistics were completed for all outcomes of interest. Results: As of November 2020, a total of 27 orthopaedic surgeons from 17 institutions had enrolled 1004 knees with OCD, representing 903 patients (68.9% males; median age, 13.1 years; range, 6.3-25.4 years), into the prospective cohort. Lesions were located on the medial femoral condyle (66.2%), lateral femoral condyle (18.1%), trochlea (9.5%), patella (6.0%), and tibial plateau (0.2%). Most cases involved multisport athletes (68.1%), with the most common primary sport being basketball for males (27.3% of cases) and soccer for females (27.6% of cases). The median Pediatric International Knee Documentation Committee (Pedi-IKCD) score was 59.9 (IQR, 45.6-73.9), and the median Pediatric Functional Activity Brief Scale (Pedi-FABS) score was 21.0 (IQR, 5.0-28.0). Initial treatments were surgical intervention (55.4%) and activity restriction (44.0%). When surgery was performed, surgeons deemed the lesion to be stable at intraoperative assessment in 48.1% of cases. Conclusion: The multicenter ROCK group has been able to enroll the largest knee OCD cohort to date. This information is being used to further understand the pathology of OCD, including its cause, associated comorbidities, and initial presentation and symptoms. The cohort having been established is now being followed longitudinally to better define and elucidate the best treatment algorithms based on these presenting signs and symptoms.

Objectives: The ability of current return to sport (RTS) criteria to identify young, active patients after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) independently, at high risk for future ipsilateral or contralateral ACL injury is limited. The purpose of this study was to determine if meeting current, standard RTS criteria collectively, or in part, would identify young athletes at risk for an ipsilateral or contralateral ACL injury after primary ACLR and RTS. The tested hypothesis was the likelihood of an ipsilateral or contralateral 2nd ACL injury in the first 2 years after RTS would be the same in groups that successfully met or failed to meet all RTS criteria prior to RTS. The second hypothesis was that quadriceps femoris strength at the time of RTS would identify which limb was at greatest risk for future ACL injury. Methods: One hundred eighty-one patients (116 female) with a mean age of 16.7±2.9 years old underwent ACLR and were released to return to pivoting/cutting sports. These patients were enrolled in a prospective, observational cohort study, completed a RTS assessment and were tracked for occurrence of an ipsilateral graft tear or contralateral ACL injury after ACLR for 24 months. The RTS assessment included 6 tests: isometric quadriceps strength, 4 functional hop tests and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) patient reported outcome survey. Limb symmetry index (LSI) was calculated for strength and hop test assessments [(inv/uninv)*100]. Subjects were classified into groups that successfully passed all 6 RTS tests at a level of 90 compared to those that failed to meet all 6 criteria. Chi Square tests and Fisher Exact Tests were used to determine if successfully passing all 6 RTS measures resulted in a reduced risk of 2nd ACL injury in the first 24 months after RTS as well as to assess if ability to successfully pass individual RTS criteria resulted in reduced risk of 2nd ACL injury. Results: Thirty-nine (21.5%) patients suffered a 2nd ACL injury with 18 ipsilateral graft failures and 21 contralateral ACL tears in the first 24 months after RTS following ACLR. At the time of RTS, 57 patients (31.5%) achieved LSI values of 90% or greater on all testing as well as an IDKC value of 90 or greater. At this level, there was no difference in ipsilateral graft failures between patients who passed all RTS criteria (15.8%) and those who failed at least 1 criterion (7.3%; p=0.08). There was also no difference in contralateral ACL injuries between patients who passed all RTS criteria (7.0%) and those who failed at least 1 criterion (13.7%; p=0.22). When individual RTS criterion were evaluated, patients who failed to achieve 90% quadriceps strength LSI were 84% less likely to suffer an ipsilateral graft failure (OR=0.16; 95%CI: 0.04, 0.74;p=0.009), but 3 times more likely to suffer a contralateral ACL injury (OR=2.5; 95%CI:1.0, 6.5;p=0.05). Conclusion: Current criteria to evaluate readiness to return young athletes to pivoting and cutting sports, may not identify young, active patients independently at high risk for a future ipsilateral graft tear or contralateral ACL injury. Inability to achieve 90% LSI on an isometric quadriceps strength assessment resulted in a reduced risk of ipsilateral graft failure, but an increased risk in contralateral ACL injury after ACLR and RTS. Further investigation is needed on the relationship between quad strength and side of future ACL injury and whether other factors may help contribute to a predictive model of future ACL injury specific to limb.